Check 21 is just as clear as mud to those of us who are unfamiliar with the truncating & imaging process...

In the ABA's Check 21 Toolbox #1 there are picture examples of substitute checks and returned substitute checks. The example of the returned substitute check shows the check as being returned to the truncating bank and not the bank of first deposit. Why?

Are you referring to the Gray Scale Personal Return item in the appendix that shows RT 053000183 as the BOFD on the QRC "strip"? I would agree this appears to be incorrect. I tried tracing this through an IRD workflow presentation that is on the ECCHO website and it appears to be the same item and on the ECCHO site, the example correctly identifies 031000011 as the BOFD on the strip. I am sure that is the bank you would have expected to see in the strip MICR line. I wrote to the Chair of X9 about this but I beleive this is an error on the part of ABA when they compiled the document.

Yes, this is the example I was speaking of. The proof department was reviewing the toolbox yesterday to get a handle on how their department was going to be effected by Check 21 and noticed this. Thanks for the reply Bill!

We're not quite as crazy around here as we thought!

I did verify with Andy Garner, Chair of X9.90, that the example in the ABA Toolbox is incorrect. It was not caught in the edit review process.
Potentially, one could argue that a paying bank could send an item back to the truncating bank, since they have the original item. However, that wasn't the intent of the example.